KABOOM: Citigroup Could Face A $22 Billion Loss On Put Back Mortgage Bonds

Vikram won't be happy.  Estimates put Citigroup's total exposure at $35 billion. 

Editor's Note: This is another in our series of articles from late 2010, that we are reposting in the wake of Friday's landmark foreclosure ruling from the Massachusetts Supreme Court.

---

Citigroup faces putback risks

From CNBC

Now that Bank of America has been hit with a giant lawsuit from mortgage bond investors demanding the bank repurchase loans, investors will scramble to figure out the levels of exposure at every other major bank.

So how large is Citigroup’s exposure? Using some figures from Citi’s earning’s presentation and financial analyst Dick Bove, I’ve concluded that as much as $58 billion in bubble-era home loans packaged in mortgage backed securities serviced by Citi have or will likely default. Citi may be liable for buying back as much as $35 billion of the loans. After recovering some of that through foreclosure sales, Citi may be looking at a loss of $22 billion.

A few caveats are in order. Citigroup will likely fight the demands that it repurchase the loans. The lawsuits will take years, which is both good and bad for Citi. It’s good because it means put-backs are unlikely to quickly punch a hole in Citi’s balance sheet. It’s bad because it means this could weigh on earnings for years and legal costs will keep mounting.

Most importantly, these numbers are only my best estimates of Citi’s future put-back liabilities. I cannot say for certain—no one can—what the ultimate cost of the put backs will be for Citi. The number could be far smaller than our estimate. Or it could be larger.

My starting point is trying to estimate the total size of Citigroup’s securitization business during the worst years of the housing bubble. On the earnings call yesterday, CFO John Gerspach discussed a portfolio of loans that Citi services but does not hold. His remarks suggested that Citi is using this portfolio of loans as a way of putting a framework around their total third-party put-back risk.

My methodology is to apply the lessons of  my article yesterday, on Dick Bove's analysis of the aggregate cost of bank putback risk, to the loan portfolio discussed below.

• Continue reading (there's much more)

TARP 2.0 bitchez.

• "Foreclosures are going to overwhelm Bank of America and Wells Fargo."

• Goldman Sachs: Size Matters — and "We're Really Tiny in Mortgage Put-Backs"

---

     Email to a Friend

---

Comments

[Jamie]

wonder how this affects Citi's future

[DailyBail]

I can't imagine it's helpful..they're going to need more taxpayer help...no doubt about it in my mind...

[Aint Bullshittin']

can't you see Pandit is already puckering up to suck on that MASSIVE Gov't TEAT........It's DRY you summm a bich....reap it scumbag...reap it.......AB

LET THEM FAIL-HELP US TO HELP YOU LET THEM FAIL-VOTE NOV, 2nd for ANYONE who DID NOT vote for TARP= "Theft Approved for Raping Patriots"

[G Street]

It would be more accurate to say, "Taxpaying citizens, who gained no benefit from these fraudulent banking activities but who pay the price of a permanently impaired real estate market, will be expected to relieve the criminals at Citi of another $22 billion or more in bad debts resulting from fraud."

A little longwinded, but damn, I'm pissed. The President used the shooting in Arizona to talk about law and order, and all the comments on the financial website I was on at the time were about the hypocrisy of the banks being aided and abetted in systemic financial crimes while the president talks of law and order. There is no law and order so long as financial gansterism is met only with government complicity.

I would also like to point out that losses don't evaporate into thin air. The $22 billion was deposited into accounts. For the most part losses represent transfers of money, with the general direction being from the public to the private coffers of those who own our government.

[DailyBail]

well said g...